The "Risks of Routine Tests" and Analogical Reasoning in Assessments of Minimal Risk.
Research risks have to meet minimal risk requirements in order for the research to qualify for expedited ethics review, to be exempted from ethics review, or to be granted consent waivers. The definition of "minimal risk" in the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) relies on the risks-of-daily-life and risks-of-...
| Publicado en: | Journal of Medicine & Philosophy Vol. 49; no. 1; pp. 102 - 116 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Feb2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=175496718&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 175496718 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 03605310 MPS jtl: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy issn: 03605310 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2024 vid: 49 iid: 1 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 175496718 10.1093/jmp/jhad042 ppf: 102 ppct: 14 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 204KB tig: atl: The "Risks of Routine Tests" and Analogical Reasoning in Assessments of Minimal Risk. aug: au: Kwek, Adrian affil: Core Learning, College of Interdisciplinary and Experiential Learning, Singapore University of Social Sciences, Singapore su: Moral reasoning Codes of ethics Comparator circuits Risk assessment Ethics sug: subj: Moral reasoning Codes of ethics Comparator circuits Risk assessment Ethics keyword: analogical reasoning daily life minimal risk routine tests ab: Research risks have to meet minimal risk requirements in order for the research to qualify for expedited ethics review, to be exempted from ethics review, or to be granted consent waivers. The definition of "minimal risk" in the Common Rule (45 CFR 46) relies on the risks-of-daily-life and risks-of-routine-tests as comparators against which research activities are assessed to meet minimal risk requirements. While either or both comparators have been adopted by major ethics codes, they have also been criticized. In response to criticisms, elaborations, and alternative comparators have been proposed. In this paper, I approach the search for workable comparators from the point of view that ethical reasoning about minimal risk involves analogical reasoning using comparators. In this regard, I develop two necessary conditions for an adequate minimal risk conception, which I use to assess three comparators. I conclude that the risks-of-routine-tests best fits the analogical reasoning operating in minimal risk assessments. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc.. item: Journal of Medicine & Philosophy holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2024 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|